The accused petitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 readwith Section 401 CrPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a Cr. complaint against the accused person(s) under Section 138 of NI Act in the Court of Magistrate. The trial court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 138 of NI Act and summoned the accused person(s). The substance of accusation was read over to the accused person(s), who denied for the same and claimed for trial. From the complainant side, the statements were recorded and evidence was adduced. Thereafter the statement of the accused person(s) were recorded U/s. 313 CrPC. After conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 13.2.2014 convicted for the accused person(s) for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo 2 years' SI and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the complainant; in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo 6 months' SI. Against the said judgment passed by the trial court, the petitioner filed the appeal, but the appellate court, vide judgment/order dated 5.12.2014 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the trial court.

3. Hence this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a businessman and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The learned courts below have not taken into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and in a mechanical manner, passed the impugned judgments/orders, which, in the interest of justice, deserve to be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted.

5. In the alternate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if this Court is not going to acquit the accused petitioner, then looking to the fact that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the court below in nearing 44 cases, she wants that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in all the cases should run concurrently and not consecutively.

6. Learned PP has opposed the same.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, I do not think it proper to acquit the accused petitioner. Hence, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below.

8. So far as the direction of running all the sentences concurrently is concerned, the scope of revision is very limited and in the revision petition, such type of direction cannot be given. However, the petitioner is given a liberty to file a petition under Section 482 CrPc seeking direction for running all the sentences awarded to the petitioner concurrently.Petition Dismissed.

*******